To David Brooks, Clinton and Trump Are Equally Distrustful Even Though David Brooks's Examples Show They're Not

Sometimes, one sentence tells you all you need to know. So focus on this one about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton: "They have set the modern standards for withholding information — his not releasing tax and health records, her not holding regular news conferences or quickly disclosing her pneumonia diagnosis." Do you see the problem? Do you see the blatant fuckery at work there? It's like a balance scale where one side has a mouse and the other side has a skyscraper.

Let me lay it out for you like a bethonged Trump scorching his leathery flesh on a tanning bed. Clinton is being criticized for her lack of "regular" news conferences, which means she does have them, just not often enough for the writer's liking, and for not saying fast enough that she's sick. So she's done these things, yet she is being compared to Trump who, as the writer notes, has not released his tax returns or a legitimate health report. She hasn't done enough, and he hasn't done any, yet, according to the writer, they are equal in their shadiness. This is pretty much the way the mainstream media has covered this race.

Think of it this way: Someone just walked out on a boat dock dumped a bunch of kittens into a lake, and they're gonna fuckin' drown. Clinton rushes in, grabs a few kittens, and gets them out. The rest die, sure, but Clinton saved some scratching, biting, screaming kittens, no matter how much those wet little fuckers made her bleed. Trump just stood there and not only didn't try to save kittens, but he pissed on them from the dock.

So if the media was there, they'd say, "Trump and Clinton want kittens to drown."

The writer of that stark bullshit sentence up at the top is David Brooks of the New York Times (motto: "All the news that can fuck up the Clintons"), and in his latest "column" (if by "column," you mean, "A bare couple of connections stretched over a rack and forced to fellate an irrational conclusion"), Brooks wants you to know that distrust is everywhere, man. Oh, it starts with the candidates and their obviously equivalent sins, but, like everything Brooks spends five minutes googling late at night in his semen-stained tightie-whities post-Asian strangle porn masturbation, it must mean something else. Lack of trust leads to loneliness. Loneliness leads isolation. Isolation leads to what Brooks sees as the faux intimacy of the online world. The faux intimacy of the online world leads to more Asian strangle porn and the cycle starts again, except this time, Brooks will finger his asshole while jacking it.

Again and again and again, writers like Brooks who bemoan the decline in trust in our institutions and in each other leave out the greatest factor. It ain't a leap to say that when one of two major political parties in a nation makes it its mission to turn people against each other, to demand obedience to an ideology of hatred of difference, and to block any effort to bring the nation together for any greater purpose (unless it's killing some people far away), you're pretty much guaranteeing that a large segment of the population will say, "Fuck it" and drop out of civic and interpersonal engagement except for supporting Trump.

Whatever Democrats might have done to foster the isolation of the white working class, it pales in comparison to what the Republican Party has done to exploit that isolation and make the individual more important than the community. Or the nation.

But, you know, then again, these are the same motherfuckers who think that Clinton's desire for a little privacy is the same as Trump's refusal to prove he's not a con man.